[ShadowWolf_IH]

ok i am going to make a final statement in this thread.  everyone knows that these governemtns support terrorism, either directly or indirectly.  and when we were attacked on 9-11, it was stated that we would go after the terrorists and after the governments that harbor them.  Don't ask me where the proof is that they harbor them, because i couldn't begin to give an intelligent answer to that question.  

But we all know that iran and iraq, among others do give harbor to these terrorists.  That is where this stems from.  everything else is bar room crap.  I can't offer proof that they harbor terrorists, but we all know it to be true.  They were warned after we were attacked by terrorists that we were coming for them if they harbor them, they do, and we are.  To hell with the rest of it.  

You think about this one from the position of our current president.  We have been at war since 9 months into his first term.  We were attacked, and we are hitting back, if we are violating the borders and sovereignty of countries who harbor people who would murder thousands....then so be it.  The difference isn't black and white, it's right and wrong.  I fully believe that we are right to go after them, and on september 12th, so did you.  I guess the big difference in this is, unlike most of the world, including the american public in general, i haven't forgotten how it felt to see those people die.

So do i support this war and a war on any nation that harbors terrorists?  You're damned right i do.

[Thrilla]

Originally posted by an0n


And most importantly - neither the US nor the UK has any troops left to fight Iran, and no-one else is going to help the US out. All 'our' troops are engaged in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Um, ok then why are the majority of the Reservist and National Guard, and Marine Reserve soldiers still sitting at home?  I'm not complaining, too much about the rotations in and out because I know they could be a hell of worse.  People keep complaining that the army is stretched too far mainly because they have never really used the amount of Reservists and National Guard as much as they are now, and many of them are college students like me, however, unlike me they many joined for just the money for school, and didn't plan on going anywhere.  Many people think that since they are using the reservist then they are stretched too far.  Well hell!  Don't quote me on the number, but something like 40% of the US Army is Reservist and National Guard members.  Of course they are going to use them.  I'm not saying we should attack Iran or anybody else.  I am firmly against it.  However, please check your sources before you make a statement like this.

[Rictor]

Did Nicaragua start bombing American cities when they were attacked by terrorists supported by the US? Did they invade? You lost 3000 people, they lost hundred of thousands, as did Iraq.

You're may believe that you are "going after terrorists", but for every 1 terrorist you kill, a thousands innocents die. "They" hit you with 1 WTC attack. You hit back with 50. Innocents are dying, and we all know who is responsible.

[Zarax]

9-11 can only go so far.
In fact US has pretty much consumed all popular support it gained with it.
By putting war after war you are only fueling the damned terrorism, it's a losing game for both sides.
Do you think you were hit alone?
We had our 3-11 in EU (Spain), but that never gave us the right to play the militaristic rush like the US is doing.
Guess what happened?
The EU refused to go to their very own level of wrongness and instead we reinforced our internal security without stomping our civil rights.
Everyone supported your "retaliation" against afghanistan, but now it's enough.
The US failed to bring credible evidence for the iraqui conflict, and now it purely plays aggressive against Iran?
This is only a mere revenge for a puppet regime being thrown out and nothing more.

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Sapphire

Not our problem till it reaches our shores, right?  In fact, had we minded our own biz ya'll could conceivably be goosestepping and eating weiner schnitzel...

Hooooo, lookie, the good ol' argument : "You would be nazi if it weren't for us !!"
That being said, the US didn't move en masse until thay were hit anyway. Pearl harbour anyone ?
As for the other part of the argument, my opinion is that the nazi would have crumbled against the USSR, due to a few to many freedom fighter ([sarcasm]or is that terrorist[/sarcasm]) in their midst. The point is: everything is only a matter of opinion. Unfortunately, right now, it's more and more the US pov versus the rest of the world pov.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Thrilla

However, please check your sources before you make a statement like this.

The US Army declared many times that they are ready to keep with 2 major regional conflicts and one humanitarian emergency.
You already have these, of course the national guard and other reserve levies can be sent but you're going to see a big slaughter then.

[pyro-manic]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
*snip*

I fully believe that we are right to go after them, and on september 12th, so did you.  

*snip*

Did I? Did I really? And how would you know what I thought? Don't think you know how everyone feels about that event.

How many people died that day? Less than 3,000. How many civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past 3 years? I can guarantee that it's ten times that many, and more. How many civilians have been killed by US actions in the past 15 years? 3,000 doesn't seem like that many any more, does it?


The day that America starts showing some respect for the rest of the world is the day that the hatred will stop.

[Genryu]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
ok i am going to make a final statement in this thread.  everyone knows that these governemtns support terrorism, either directly or indirectly.  and when we were attacked on 9-11, it was stated that we would go after the terrorists and after the governments that harbor them.  Don't ask me where the proof is that they harbor them, because i couldn't begin to give an intelligent answer to that question.  

But we all know that iran and iraq, among others do give harbor to these terrorists.  

Do you really want me to give you all the proof there weren't a terrorist in Irak UNTIL AFTER the US made such a mess of the country ? Iran, yes. Saudi Arabia, yes. Afghanistan, yes. Irak had nothing to ****ing do with 9/11, ffs !!

[Thrilla]

Originally posted by Zarax


The US Army declared many times that they are ready to keep with 2 major regional conflicts and one humanitarian emergency.
You already have these, of course the national guard and other reserve levies can be sent but you're going to see a big slaughter then.

And you under estimate our training and mobilization training.

[Corsair]

I don't think that Iran is such a threat. They'll have nukes. So what? America was warned all through the election that sooner or later an American city will be nuked and that it'll be because the rogue nations in the Axis of Evil were allowed to gain nukes.

Nobody's quite that stupid. If Iran were to give Al-Queda a nuke and Osama managed to smuggle the nuke into the US and detonate it, do you think for one second that we'd question who did it? Hell no. The US would find some quick evidence that some nationstate had built the weapon and there would be an ICBM with Tehran's name on it before you could even say "launch."

The Iranians may not like us, but they're not dumb. The Ayatollahs may support terrorism, but they don't actual commit those acts themselves because they like being alive too much. They just play on the faith of others. They're not willing to sacrifice their comfortable lives and their power for a few million dead Americans. It's not even MAD. It's like them shooting off one of our arms and us hitting them square in the head with a round from a howitzer.

[Sapphire]

Originally posted by Genryu


Hooooo, lookie, the good ol' argument : "You would be nazi if it weren't for us !!"
That being said, the US didn't move en masse until thay were hit anyway. Pearl harbour anyone ?

Thank you for making my point...   we should have just looked the other way--and should not have supported the European conflict ...at least by the principle of today's world opinion.  Some of us would have had our elder relatives home safe today if they had not died on foreign soil...

[Rictor]

And if Nazi germany had been powerful enough to defeat France, Britain and Russia, how long do you think it would have been before they came knocking on your door? 5 years? 10 years? And what about imperial japan?

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Sapphire

Originally posted by Genryu


Hooooo, lookie, the good ol' argument : "You would be nazi if it weren't for us !!"
That being said, the US didn't move en masse until thay were hit anyway. Pearl harbour anyone ?

Thank you for making my point...   we should have just looked the other way--and should not have supported the European conflict ...at least by the principle of today's world opinion.  Some of us would have had our elder relatives home safe today if they had not died on foreign soil... [/B]

And then get owned by the german ballistic missiles and more advanced tech.
Don't be too proud of the european front, you basically fought 20% of the german army.

[Corsair]

Originally posted by Rictor
And if Nazi germany had been powerful enough to defeat France, Britain and Russia, how long do you think it would have been before they came knocking on your door? 5 years? 10 years? And what about imperial japan?

Japan's strategy was never to invade the US, merely to weaken it enough so that it wouldn't be able to protest when Japan created an empire in the Pacific.

Germany, on the other hand, wanted world domination.

[Sapphire]

Think about that a min....

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by Zarax
Do you think you were hit alone?
We had our 3-11 in EU (Spain), but that never gave us the right to play the militaristic rush like the US is doing.
Guess what happened?
The EU refused to go to their very own level of wrongness and instead we reinforced our internal security without stomping our civil rights.

No. Instead of playing the militaristic card, you backed out on the US and played the coward card and rolled in the red carpet for the Socialists.

And, instead of stepping to a new level of wrongness, the EU instead transformed itself into a world roadblock, putting itself directly in the middle of the way of the US's actions in the Middle East. Want to go on Iraq? It's not just Iraq.

It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.

No, they don't want Saddam out of office. Why? Because Saddam gave them money. He bribed nations of, above anything, the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world. So, instead of playing the militaristic card, the EU instead played the deaf-ear card. They instead accepted bribes, and stepped in the way of the US when we stepped in to stop Saddam.

And it wasn't all just for WMDs. I don't know what the hell Europe's problem is with freedom and civil rights, but for God's sake, don't screw with us when we try to do what's right. If we followed a typical EU policy here in the US back during WWII, we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten involved in such things as liberating France or destroying Italy's power.

But, hell, I don't know why I try anymore. I'm just gonna get blown off like Liberator anyway.

[pyro-manic]

"OMG COMMIES!!!11one" This isn't the 1950s any more...

The thing is, you're not doing what's right. You're grabbing resources so that your super-rich can get richer. Bush and co. couldn't give a **** about freedom and civil rights. They just wrap everything up in the stars 'n' stripes and label anyone speaking out as a traitor. That gives them the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want to secure their own wealth and power. Hence Iraq, hence USA PATRIOT, hence Guantanamo Bay, hence Abu Grahib, hence most of South America, etc etc etc. Open your eyes...

[Tiara]

It's so funny to watch people talk about the second WW without having even the slightest bit of knowledge about it besides this image of America saving the day

And Nuclear, please get your head out of that pile of doodoo.

the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world.

Most of the more damaging vetoes came from the US People keep forgetting that the US also has a permanent seat on the SC. They like to block out the fact that the US has been the biggest member of the UN and has blocked some of the better ideas by slapping vetoes all around if it doesn't serve their interest..

[Rictor]

nuclear, do you honestly, truly believe that Iraq is about establishing a free and democratic nation? Do you?

[Gank]

Dont know why you try either, because you're talking bollox. EU is blocking the US from doing things for a very good reason, because you've proven yourselfs unable to do anything other than make things worse with your interventions. Vietnam, Kosovo, Somalia, Nicaragua, Iran, Lebanon, it goes on and on.